I'm not suggesting that any individual incident is comparable, but the onus is on those who claim HSTs are more dangerous than other trains which Scotrail operate to justify their claims; it looks like the most recent incident either involved a tree falling onto the train or the tree was at a higher level than the other incident, hence the HST was worse off. In any case, the cabs of other trains used by Scotrail do not appear to be impenetrable by any means; if you look at the Class 170 image, it looks like fibreglass material, which the tree went through.Without getting involved in the wider discussion about risks, I don't think posting this incident report is relevant given it shows a hit to a window with no damage to the surrounding structure
I'm yet to be presented with any evidence that HST cabs are in any way more dangerous than Class 170 or 158 cabs; it appears that the usual suspects are simply using this incident to further an anti-HST agenda. Had it been a Class 170 that was struck, those with the anti-HST agenda would have probably kept quiet.
Such incidents are rare, and rail remains a very safe mode of transport (whether that be for drivers, other staff or passengers), however it is unfortunate that people will latch onto anything rail related and claim that something is unsafe, while accepting a very poor safety record of road transport as totally normal. It's also considered fashionable among some to try to argue that certain types of trains are unsafe, while being silent about other types of trains, but without presenting any evidence that the 'unsafe' trains are actually any less safe than the type of trains they are silent about.